National University of Ireland, Galway
An Coiste Feabhais Acadúil
The Committee on Academic Quality Improvement
The Academic Quality Assurance Programme 2009 2010
REVIEW OF
The BSc in Health and Safety Systems,
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND,
GALWAY
Final REPORT
(Wednesday, 24th March 2010)
This report arises from a visit by a review team to the NUI, Galway on Friday 26th
February, 2010. The Programme Board of the BSc in Health and Safety Systems had
already prepared and submitted a 'Self Assessment Report' that, with other
documentation, was made available to the review team well in advance of the visit.
The review team consisted of: Dr Anne Drummond, School of Public Health,
Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin (Chair); Mrs Päivi
Hämäläinen, Institute of Occupational Safety Engineering, Tampere University of
Technology; Ms Rachael Kelly, Environmental Health and Safety, Beckman Coulter;
Dr Mark Healy, Civil Engineering, NUI Galway; and Dr Conor O’Byrne, of the
School of Natural Sciences, NUI Galway, acting as Rapporteur.
1.
Aims and Objectives
The BSc in Health and Safety systems is a multidisciplinary undergraduate degree
programme with significant teaching inputs from the Schools of Engineering and
Informatics Health Sciences, and Law. The primary objective of the programme is to
produce graduates that will be capable of managing an organization’s Health &
Safety-related issues, as well as issues related to environment and quality.
The reviewers found that the programme objectives were very well defined and all
staff consulted had a clear idea of the programme’s objectives. The brochure provided
to potential students at open days and school visits is excellent. It gives a very clear
and concise overview of what students can expect to learn on the course.
The review group were particularly impressed by the interdisciplinary nature of the
programme, which is a feature that is clearly very attractive to students. The
contribution of each discipline to the programme was well defined and
communication between the disparate groups of staff appeared to be excellent.
Recommendations:

2.
The reviewers felt that there is an opportunity for the programme to convey
the course aims and objectives more clearly to students, particularly in the first
year. Students were not always clear what the relevance of individual
specialised subjects were to their degree course, and in some cases, this might
have contributed to their poor performances in certain modules. An improved
communication of the significance of each course and module should help to
give the students more of a sense of identity, and should also help to give them
more focus and direction.
Organization and management
The review group noted that there was a strong sense of purpose from the programme
board and from all academic staff involved in the course, from the lecturers to the
deans. In particular, the reviewers found that there was very good interaction and
coordination between all the internal stakeholders. This was particularly impressive
2
given the wide range of staff from different disciplines that collaborate to deliver the
programme.
The administrative support provided to the programme by Ms Mary Hardiman came
in for significant praise from all academic staff. Her contribution to the programme
represents a significant asset. Indeed, her informal contact with graduates helps to
maintain a network that the programme might be able to exploit more fully for
teaching initiatives (see below).
The review group also felt that the current programme director, Ms Martina Kelly,
merited significant praise for the enthusiasm and commitment she is clearly giving to
the programme. Her continued leadership augers very well for the future of the
programme.
The fact that four colleges contribute to the programme (Science; Engineering and
Informatics; Business, Public Policy & Law; and Medicine, Nursing and Health
Sciences) is a significant strength, particularly in relation to the potential for
marketing the course to potential students.
While the reviewers had some early concerns, based on the documentation, about the
possibility of ambiguity in governance of the programme because of the disparate
disciplines involved, these concerns were allayed during the course of our
discussions. Indeed, the commitment to multi-disciplinarity came across as a
significant strength.
Recommendations:

The reviewers suggest that the programme board should consider opening a
formal line of communication with colleagues involved with similar
programmes in UL and Sligo. Particularly in light of the recently announced
strategic alliance between UL and NUIG, the review group felt that there may
be real opportunities for synergy between the two programmes.

It is recommended that the programme should establish an external
stakeholder advisory board, whose function would be to offer advice on the
development of the curriculum, the objectives of the work placement and
programme learning outcomes. This board should meet on an annual basis at
least and should as a minimum include representation from the Health and
Safety Authority (HSA), a relevant industry (i.e. a key employer), a Health
and Safety graduate who is working in the H&S field, and the programme
director.

Although the reviewers were not able to fully establish the extent of teaching
contributed by part-time (hourly paid) teaching assistants, it was clear that
their contribution is significant. Despite this, there is currently no forum for
these teaching staff to communicate with the programme board. The review
group recommends that some formal structure be established to ensure that
this communication occurs, at least once per semester.
3

Connected to this last recommendation, the reviewers felt that consolidation
and rationalisation of these part-time teaching hours into a single dedicated
teaching assistant should be considered in the long-term interests of the
programme.

There is an opportunity for improved marketing of the course. The review
group recommends that programme director liaise with the director of
Marketing & Communications at NUIG (Ms Caroline Loughnane) to help
improve marketing, which has the potential to increase the calibre of student
attracted onto the programme. Specifically, members of each college could
promote the programme to secondary school students.
3.
Programmes and Instruction
The reviewers found that the programme is very well balanced pedagogically with
input coming from an appropriate range of complementary disciplines. This produces
well-rounded students, who are well-equipped to seek employment in the
management of Health & Safety–related issues.
The programme has a clear national identity, with a particular reputation for its
strength in Ergonomics/Human Factors Occupational Hygiene, and Health Promotion.
This identity clearly distinguishes it from similar courses at UL, where the emphasis
in on chemical and pharmaceutical-related Health & Safety, and Sligo, where the
focus is more environmental. This unique identity should help ensure that the
programme is effectively marketed and attracts high calibre students in future years.
The reviewers note that the BSc in Health and Safety continues to attract a significant
proportion of mature students. This is very commendable and clearly demonstrates the
relevance of the programme to individuals with real experience of the employment
market.
There was an impressive commitment from the heads of each contributing discipline
to continue to support and develop this degree programme. This commitment clearly
has a positive impact on the morale and enthusiasm of all the staff that teach on the
programme.
Recommendations:

To improve students’ sense of identity and focus, the reviewers recommend
that the curriculum in years one and two be reviewed by the programme board.
Inclusion of Health & Safety-related course material in these formative years
could also help students appreciate the significance of specialised subjects to
their overall training. Teaching input from the programme director at these
critical times would be especially beneficial. As part of this curriculum
review, the programme board should consider including additional site visits
(this was specifically mentioned during discussions with students), as well as
4
guest visits and seminars, perhaps using the expertise and goodwill of past
graduates, where appropriate.

Related to this first recommendation the review group suggest that the
programme board consider establishing a more formal network of graduates.
This network could be used to great effect to introduce guest speakers, offer
Health & Safety related demonstrations, provide additional site visits and even
help identify relevant work placements. This graduate network represents a
largely untapped resource that with a relatively small investment of effort
could yield significant benefits for the overall quality of the programme.

The reviewers noted the concerns of both staff and students in relation to poor
grades achieved on some courses, particularly in years one and two. It is clear
that staff have already made significant efforts to address this issue. The
reviewers believe that the grouping of some subjects together may be
encouraging selective/strategic studying by students, which appears to be
particularly detrimental to the grades achieved on some subjects. The
reviewers suggest, therefore, that an alteration of subject groupings and/or
marks and standards be considered by the programme board. As part of this
review, it may also be timely to reconsider the entry requirements to first year,
particularly in light of the difficulties students are facing with certain subjects.

In discussions with students, it was clear that many feel that they are not
receiving adequate and timely feedback on assignments submitted throughout
the academic year. The review group recommends that the programme board
identify opportunities to provide students with formative feedback on their
work.
Students appeared to be unaware of existing mechanisms for providing
feedback on the course (e.g., staff-student committee) and the response rate to
the programme feedback questionnaire appeared to be poor. The review group
recommends that staff on the programme regularly alert students to existing
opportunities for providing feedback, and consider providing more
opportunities for feedback in the future.


6.
Finally, the review group noted that, although not unique to this programme,
there are issues with poor lecture attendance. The review group recommends
that the programme board explores the option of making attendance a criterion
for entry to university examinations.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
The review group found this to be a well-integrated multidisciplinary programme that
produces well-rounded graduates who are qualified to take up positions in the
management of Health & Safety issues after graduation. Teaching on the programme
is provided by staff from four colleges (Science; Engineering and Informatics;
Business, Public Policy & Law; and Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences). The
programme board that oversees this course is well-balanced, with members from each
of the contributing disciplines, and there appears to be very good interaction and
5
coordination between all the internal stakeholders. The key recommendations of the
review group are as follows:
1. The review group suggest that the programme board consider establishing a
more formal network of graduates. This network could be used to great effect
to introduce guest speakers, offer Health & Safety related demonstrations,
provide additional site visits and even help identify relevant work placements.
This graduate network represents a largely untapped resource that with a
relatively small investment of effort could yield significant benefits for the
overall quality of the programme.
2. It is recommended that the programme should establish an external
stakeholder advisory board, whose function would be to offer advice on the
development of the curriculum.
3. The reviewers recommend that the curriculum in years one and two be
reviewed by the programme board. The reviewers believe that the grouping of
some subjects together may be encouraging selective/strategic studying by
students, which appears to be particularly detrimental to the grades achieved
on some subjects. The reviewers suggest, therefore, that an alteration of
subject groupings and/or marks and standards be considered by the
programme board. As part of this review, it may also be timely to reconsider
the entry requirements to first year, particularly in light of the difficulties
students are facing with certain subjects.
4. The reviews suggest that the programme director should consider using the
director of Marketing & Communications at NUIG (Ms Caroline Loughnane)
to better promote & market the course to potential students.
5. The reviewers suggest that the programme board should consider opening a
formal line of communication with colleagues involved with similar
programmes in UL and Sligo.
Comments on the Methodology of the Review Process
The reviewers met with the programme director, Ms Martina Kelly, and then with the
programme board, as well as staff contributing to the programme. Then, the reviewers
met undergraduates from all 4 years taking the degree course. Time with these
students was somewhat limited and the reviewers felt that one hour would have been
more appropriate for this meeting, rather than the 30 minutes allocated.
Helpful meetings were also held with Prof Peter Dockery (Anatomy), with the former
Programme director, Mr Enda Fallon (Industrial Engineering), with the heads of the
disciplines and schools contributing to the programme (Dr Mark Lang, Prof Liam
O’Malley, Dr Margaret Hodgins, and Prof Peter McHugh).
In the afternoon, the review group met with the Dean of Science (Dr Gerry Morgan)
and a representative of the Dean of Engineering and Informatics (Dr Peter Corcoran).
The group then convened in private to prepare its report. During this meeting, there
was an additional consultation with Ms Martina Kelly to clarify certain issues that
arose during the day.
6
Finally, the review gave an overview of its findings to Ms Martina Kelly and then Dr
Drummond presented a summary of group’s findings at an exit meeting attended by
all staff involved in the programme.
Taking into account the relatively limited number of graduate opportunities in the
market for safely and health practitioners and the competition from UL and Sligo, the
review group would have welcomed more information on graduate career pathways
and on the current status of past graduates. An opportunity to have met with an
employer of graduates would also have been of benefit to the reviewers. We
recommend that, in future programme reviews, the Quality Office consider requesting
that this information be made available.
Review Group:
Dr Anne Drummond (Chair)
Mrs Päivi Hämäläinen
Ms Rachael Kelly
Dr Mark Healy
Dr Conor O’Byrne (Rapporteur)
(Date Finalised: Tuesday, 16 February 2016).
7